Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-If both measures are challenged and thrown out in court, the referendum process and <br />proposal of new initiatives would begin again. Having measures thrown out, and/or voted <br />down, does not mean an end to further initiatives measures in the same area. <br /> <br />The City Attorney stated the development process goes on irrespective of what measure <br />is approved by the voters and to understand that, irrespective of what goes up for a vote <br />that the right of the public to litigate issues does not go away. It is always there <br />irrespective of the Charter provisions. The Charter provision that would go into effect <br />would be yet another basis for litigation. It does not replace what already exists on the <br />books. It's just one more level of litigation to go through. <br /> <br />The Vice Mayor asked for clearer language in the initiative in making sure the public would <br />not be led to a false perception that the development in the Cargill lands was a forgone <br />conclusion. Mr. Willis took this under consideration. <br /> <br />The Mayor suggested they move ahead and allow the City Attorney and his staff to take <br />the countermeasure back, make the modifications and return to Council at the next <br />meeting. Council Members spoke to bringing it back with the suggested changes, and <br />hopefully have all of this in a document that could be made available to the public at the <br />next meeting. Council stressed the importance of being careful with all the modifications <br />in not making any fundamental changes that would lead to unintended consequences in <br />the countermeasure. There was also discussion on whether or not they should even place <br />a countermeasure on the ballot, in that they could just let the initiative go to ballot for pass <br />or fail, and then go from there. <br /> <br />Several on Council wanted to, at the very least, vote on putting the initiative on the ballot <br />during the current meeting, and then continuing to work on their countermeasure. <br />Discussion continued, on how to proceed, and the Mayor spoke as to how they would <br />proceed, based on how Council had weighed in. They would not be making a Motion of <br />Intent to place the initiative on the ballot at the current meeting. The City Attorney would <br />bring back the modifications to the countermeasure at the next meeting at which point they <br />will be voting to put the initiative on the ballot and also decide whether they would carry on <br />with the countermeasure. <br /> <br />The City Attorney stressed the short turnaround time before they would be returning with <br />the modified countermeasure, in that it may not be available for the public until the night of <br />the meeting, rather than the Thursday before. The City Manager asked anyone in the <br />public who wanted to stay in the loop to check the website as the item would be flagged as <br />soon as it went live on the site, if things went beyond the Thursday prior to the meeting. <br /> <br />M/S vice Mayor Howard/Bain to extend the meeting to 11: 15 p.m. Motion carried by <br />unanimous voice vote. <br /> <br />9. MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST <br /> <br />A. Legislation (information only) - This sub-section involves possible discussion of <br />City Position on Proposed Legislation described in the League of California Cities <br /> <br />REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />JULY 28, 2008 <br />PAGE 12 <br />